If the list accurately reflects the realities of "Silicon Valley" then there isn't a problem. If it's become skewed in favour of WASP males regardless of industry makeup then there's a problem. At least a problem in perception, somewhere.
That off the plate I think that in the long term the list is accurate. Though at first I wondered how they missed out on Admiral Grace Hopper who, sadly, died before the Web really got going so I guess she doesn't qualify. I'd say that her influence is still felt and will be felt for a long time yet, though not specifically on the web itself but on the design and structure of programming and scripting languages.
It is both interesting and alarming how many people seem to think that a patent is to cover an idea rather than the industrial or technological expression of that idea. Even worse how many people in the USPTO feel that way given some of the patents they've approved as software patents and business method patents when I read them and seem capable of anything including recreating and restaging The Big Bang.
Without, at least, a drawing of the working expression of the idea the American instinct to sue everyone in sight takes over, further hindering innovation.
I'm not going to argue that point. It would take too long and far too many words here to go into how that was done in the days before patents when the innovations were done by people in the city-state, tribe or other small unit as were the subsequent ones. So the originator, at least as far back as could be traced, was rewarded.
I did say, as well that innovation and invention never takes place in a vacuum. Something precedes it. And what makes further innovation possible is what came before it.
I agree that we're innovative as a species. We not only improve on what others have done, we rapidly adapt it and change it to suit "the tribe's" circumstances at the time.
If, as speculated, we survived the last ice age while the Neanderthal didn't, it was because we could not only innovate, we could communicate the innovation where they couldn't. The branch of humanity that appeared, on the surface, better adapted to what was going on at the time survived. The Neanderthal did not. Sub tropical homo sapiens survived and we're now the alpha predator on this planet. Archeological evidence appears very clear on that.
We've never stopped innovating. It's gotten us to where we are today, even if it's spectacularly backfired on us at times. (Easter Island.)
I'm sure the Chinese didn't add to what they'd copied so that, in their mind, they did it better.
If by inner space you mean the floor of the oceans private groups are already doing that including the fella that made Titanic and Avatar whose been fascinated with the ocean since making Titanic.
Though given what we humans have done to the surface of this planet when we've turned spots of it into tourist traps I have this feeling that we should stay out of inner space until we figure out how to clean up after ourselves.
As for the broad meaning of your post it sounds to me to be similar to what people said about the Linux when it first appeared. "There's nothing innovative about that! They're just copying!" Which ignored the itches kernel developers wanted to scratch that have resulted in evolutionary changes to the OS.
This "copy" now controls the internet, the Mars rovers, satellites, computer systems on USN and RN warships, telco switching systems and much much more. It's been adapted to all manner of situations and applications. Not bad for something that was dismissed, at first, as not innovative or as "old technology" by Windows fanboys.
When we start off with a copy we can "stand on the shoulders of giants" as Sir Issac Newton observed. Notice I said start off. From there we improve and innovate something newer and better. Innovation doesn't spring from nowhere or occur in a vacuum. Invention doesn't just happen.
Some media brands make their living off of informed commentary, insight, investigative reporting and analysis of the news and current events. Even if I have no use for their economic or political outlook there are some that I go to for exactly that. The National Post in Canada, for the time being, the NYT in the United States, for electronic media it's the BBC, the one news magazine I bother reading anymore is The Economist.
The National Post is rabidly, droolingly right wing but it's exceptionally well written and actually gets its facts right. The Economist is also right wing, dedicated to caplitalism but is muted about that. Typically British that way. The Beeb tends to be leftish and also muted about it. For all that many in the USA seem to cast the NYT as leftish for those of us outside the States it's right wing and dedicated to the capitalist cause without the anger and bombast of FOX or the Tea Party.
The strange thing is that those brands are rewarded in the long term, I left out the Wall St Journal, but they don't reach a mass audience. Conflict, anger and bombast sell...even in crafts that are supposed to be above that like journalism.
The scoop has always sold. Even if, in this case, it's a manufactured scoop. The ruling was coming down, everyone knew that who was remotely interested. What was missing from the so-called process journalism was the education on just how these judical processes work. The final word on the ruling comes near the end, not at the beginning no matter how much journalists want judges to write in the same inverted pyramid that they write in.
As to results based rewards in a health care system...that does actually reduce costs and the thing that's supposed to matter the most there. Patient outcome.
There are people of any age who will respond to something as if it's inviolate truth BECAUSE they heard/saw it on CNN/FOX or whatever. Not all of them are over 60 or anywhere near that. (And what have we older farts done to get your generalization??? If anything we are more mistrustful of mass media than others because we've seen them lie and screw up so much. We just can't work up the outrage anymore. We've come to expect it.)
So called process journalism works when it understands the process it's reporting on and understands it. Judicial rulings aren't written in an inverted pyramid style but the reporters sure reacted as if it had been. Roberts was still into his description of the problem(s) and issue(s) the Court faced before he got to the ruling which was much further in. I guess you'd call it process judiciary though the style has been around for hundreds of years so you'd think a reporter would understand that. I guess not.
Rulings start with the legal issue(s) presented, the correction(s) requested and then makes its way to the ruling. And then they go on to repeat it in depth and detail so thick you'd think you were swimming in the Alberta Tar Sands.
The other problem that the misunderstanding(s) on FOX and CNN illustrated was that the reporters inside the court waiting for the verbal ruling were, from all appearances, not reporters who covered SCOTUS much, if at all. The reports indicate that Roberts has just gotten to the problems with the commerce take on Obamacare and that's where the untrained reporters jumped rather than waiting.
Back to taking TV news seriously if you're 21, 41, 61 or 101 and take TV news seriously you're in trouble. Most particularly in specialty areas like science, constitutional law, trade issues and a fair sized raft of other things. Or to revive the so called "breaking news" concept AP is so hot on even if we got to see the bug screen full of holes in that one on the reporting of this ruling.
As you hint at. They want to hide all this behind a paywall? They actually expect to be paid for monumental screwups? (Yup)
Its a nice idea for Murphy to set up a blog for his independent work, as you suggest but it's standard for editorial cartoonists in Canada to have exclusive contracts with the paper or chain they work at which rules that one out.
I'm not even sure how much ad space The Province sells to Enbridge as a single newspaper though Postmedia would sell more space, a lot more in papers closer to home like The Edmonton Journal.
For those who don't know the Province is a tabloid style morning paper which specializes in Sports coverage and the usual blood'n'guts stories up front. The Metro Vancouver broadsheet is The Vancouver Sun which a more "serious" newspaper. Both are Postmedia products and both have had serious circulation declines in the past 20 years or so due to losing their connection with the metro area they serve.
Like a great many newspaper properties their circulation and advertising woes predate the Interwebs though they'd probably want us to think differently.
The oddest thing about this story is that editorial cartoonists are virtually untouchable in this country. Seemingly immune from our too English like libel and slander laws and other things used to control coverage. This kind of parody is something Murphy would do and I'd think Enbridge is wise enough to leave it alone. Going after a cartoonist is tantamount to instant Streisand Effect up here. Even more odd is Postmedia's and editor Wayne Moriarty's reluctance to confirm that it had to come down because of copyright.
I'm not a big Murphy fan. The Province has a far better cartoonist when it comes to public figures who need to be skewered in Bob Krieger (http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Gallery+Sports+cartoons+from+Krieger/2926089/story.html) while I find Murphy a bit childish at times.
Either way and either man, I'm going to believe Enbridge in this one. While they may have called someone in Toronto to ask what all this was about I doubt they made the advertising threat or that they issued the Canadian version of the DMCA takedown demand. They just know better.
No one seems to have expected Murphy to go public with this inside Postmedia for some strange reason. Cartoonists in Canada are a touchy bunch and guard their position as opinion leaders and opinion makers who are more trusted than their employers as well as being a vital part of the Canadian political landscape.
As far as I know C-11 has moved off to the Senate which means that it's a done deed, just lacking Royal Assent.
I doubt anything in C-11 will change out position on the 301 list as it has almost as much to do with reality as John Carter of Mars does. And it's nowhere near as bad as it could have been or many feared it would be.
Will it get us off the list? Nahhh. we have a permanent place there, I suspect. Who needs ISOHunt when there's all these bridges and highways that run across the border!
Its becoming quite rapid, which is probably behind a lot of the IP law extremism in some sectors and in government there. "If we could only fix that everything would be coming up roses!" Only if you care for your roses, of course.
The irony is that the IP extremism is costing the USA more than it's helping anything. So are the fantasies entertained around intellectual "property" such as the notion that it's a "right" and not a privilege extended to people in exchange for broadening knowledge, technology and education. What the extremists don't get is that the more extreme they become the more society at large questions extending those privileges to them and the less the society at large questions whether it is getting its end of the bargain or not. And the more society at large comes to the conclusion that it isn't.
In the meantime emerging economies such as China, Russia, Brazil and India don't worry their heads all that much about things like that. They'll take what they think they need in exactly the same way the United States did "back in the day" when it was a new country.
When the USA doesn't benefit from it's discoveries, inventions and writings as much as it ought to the skid downwards becomes faster and less controllable.
It will be a sad day when it happens. The country that housed the most true innovations of the last couple of centuries stops being the primary source and market for those innovations we will have lost something very valuable.
If you take a short cut across the corner of my lawn to get from A to B where I live you'd have trouble recovering anything at all if I did no damage to the property on the way. I might be able to recover the costs of re-seeding that part of my lawn after four or five years but that's about it. Of course, if I have to climb over a fence to do that it's a whole different story.
Keep in mind though that when we talk about Real Estate we're talking what's called Real property. Not just that but my and your rights are firmly established from more than a thousand years of jurisprudence.
Let's move on to copyright and patent law. Neither were ever intended to establish the rights holder with the same rights that a holder of real property has. In the case of the first copyright act (1709) the major trigger wasn't the alleged "rights" of creators but to prevent publishers from bankrupting themselves by rushing the same titles and authors to market at the same time in order to get the best sales on what were hoped would be best sellers.
All either concepts do is confer a monopoly on copying something, one in text form, the other in terms of physical inventions until they fell into the public domain. And it was a much shorter trip to the public domain then than now in recognition of that privilege and lawmakers who recognized that the less time something was held in a monopoly the better. Neither were ever intended to confer anything near the rights held by owners of real tangible property.
Now. as for the United States wanting to declare my country a security risk if we don't follow every jot, comma, semicolon and period of how people like you in the States interpret copyright, in particular, and patent law fill your boots. We're always high on that fiction called the 301 list.
After that you may want to talk to American and Canadian troops who, for years, served cheek by jowl in Afghanistan about just how much of a risk we are. Then you might want to kill off NORAD and NATO.
All in defense of the fantasy called intellectual "property" "rights". Not that creators and inventors shouldn't be rewarded, they should be. But there is a difference between real tangible property and what's covered by copyright and patent law.
Equating your rights where real tangible property is concerned with what's covered by copyright and patents is a false dichotomy. And a logical fallacy.
Which pretty much covers the duties defined for the "co-coordinator for cyber issues".
You can feel what you want and post what you want but your comparison is still a fallacy and no amount of stamping your feet is going to change that.
You might want to re-read the post because it's about closed captioning which doesn't do much for the blind who can't see the screen anyway but it's an association that that represents deaf people in the United States that brought the suit.
What Mike is pointing out is the cost of compliance with this ruling and, often, the near impossibility of it as the site owner could very well land in a copyright infringement lawsuit should they provide closed captioning in many cases should the rights owner not have provided it to the site.
This is a case of dueling precedence where copyright may overrule the need for sites to provide closed captioning. I may not have said that well but one requirement may smack up against the brick walls of another one.
This sort of thing gets nothing done for the deaf or for site owners.
As for blind people there are long standing ways built into HTML, PHP and so on that take care of telling the blind person what's on the screen and, in many cases, reading it to them.
That the vast majority of those who had that dream even before Napster appeared on the scene along with high speed Internet in most homes never made it either may not have occurred to them.
The chances of attaining that lifestyle with the labels in charge was about the same as it is now, perhaps less. They still have to work at it whether it's Free Culture in charge or the labels.
I can't see any reason to hit the Report button on this one. You almost write in complete sentences here.
So you're an "artists", eh? Evidently you don't write prose as your spelling and grammar are atrocious so that can't be it. And in total here you have the voice of two artists in particular that Mike has written about taking diametrically opposed positions on this. So much for unanimity right off the top.
As for the mainstream media, they jumped on in, commented on it -- a great deal of the commentary negative and critical of Lowery's position -- and have jumped off it again. Today, for example the fate of Obamacare has kinda taken over but you seem sure that the mainstream will pick it up again. Oh, and take Lowery's position.
As for Lowery being the voice of all artists rights, it does seem, since he posted his opinion that there are artists who have the nerve to disagree with him and you.
I will point out one thing. David Lowery wrote under his own name. I don't post as an Anonymous Coward but using a nick that a fair number of people know and can connect directly to my real name -- John Wilson, if you're interested -- while you hide behind Anonymity and make claims like being an "artists" that aren't the slightest bit verifiable.
This time around I'd prefer you were left unreported so that we can remember that you don't make any sense. Even when posting an Ad Hom.
And rather than answer Zac Shaw's points you ignore them. Perhaps it's because you can't.
Have fun keeping count. And do enlighten us as to what kind of "artists" you are, if you'd be so kind.
I suppose that when all else fails resort to insult.
And yes, the middleman in the recording industry, as distinct from the broader music business, isn't always found at parties sniffing lines with hundred dollar bills and famously asking "by the way which one's Pink?".
Nor are they, as far too often portrayed here by folks like you, guardians of the culture, keeping out the riff-raff and LOLcats. If a label can make a bundle off of singing LOLCats they'll sign and market them in a flash. After all, that's what A&R guys do. Labels aren't concerned about releasing ART they are a money making businesses that are concerned with making money. If art comes from that so much the better.
The AC you're responding to may know diddly squat about the recording industry but from your response you know about as much as s/he does, perhaps less.
Nor do you respond to his accurate point that most musicians and acts are the ones drawing the short end of the stick when it comes to collecting the cash at the end of the day. Or the simple fact that as the recording industry consolidated from the 1970s to now and the number of so-called majors fell to single digit numbers while regional labels almost disappeared as well the majors did what companies that face limited or no (real) competition do they loaded up with middle management (aka middlemen) whose major task has been shuffling paper.
Face it, the majors are now owned by companies that aren't even distantly related to the arts much less recording in general and music in particular. The rich recording and musical environment of the 1950s to 1970s is long gone where the people in it were not only trying to make money but knew music, knew recording, knew how to do it and how to promote it. Not spreadsheet jockies insisting that the studio make a profit each and every week.
As for whose parents did a better job raising their children I'd have to guess yours didn't manage to teach you any manners or even the fine art of persuasion. I'm sure they did their best so I'm not going to judge them on a single rude and ignorant post by their son. You, however I will judge.
Doesn't it bother you in the least that things like due process, proper procedure and all that legal stuff that guarantees things like a fair trial later on got kicked to the curb on this one?
It seems to bother Madam Justice Helen Winkelmann a whole lot. And I suspect her opinion and knowledge of the relevant law in New Zealand is a whole lot better than yours or mine.
Given the US DoJ's actions here I suspect they may try to appeal on your grounds. Given her status as Chief Justice of New Zealand's High Court I suspect that her ruling will be hard to poke holes into which is the only grounds for appeal in this kind of ruling. She's been around a bit and she definitely knows her law. Good luck to 'em. They're probably going to need it.
You can bet your bottom dollar that Dotcom's legal team will be challenging the acceptance and admissibility of any relevant evidence found, if there is much.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Chambers as that's going on!
You got some medical studies to back that one up? There's one hell of a pool of people to study, namely politicians and a large selection of PR people just to start. It's also easier to study them than AC trolls cause everyone knows who they are.
On the post: Bias In Tech & Media: Lists That Perpetuate The Stereotypes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That off the plate I think that in the long term the list is accurate. Though at first I wondered how they missed out on Admiral Grace Hopper who, sadly, died before the Web really got going so I guess she doesn't qualify. I'd say that her influence is still felt and will be felt for a long time yet, though not specifically on the web itself but on the design and structure of programming and scripting languages.
To their credit The Daily Beast and Newsweek address this here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/24/invisible-woman.html
On the post: Innovation, Copying And Civil Disobedience
Re:
Without, at least, a drawing of the working expression of the idea the American instinct to sue everyone in sight takes over, further hindering innovation.
On the post: Innovation, Copying And Civil Disobedience
Re: Re:
I did say, as well that innovation and invention never takes place in a vacuum. Something precedes it. And what makes further innovation possible is what came before it.
On the post: Innovation, Copying And Civil Disobedience
Re: Evolution of evolution
If, as speculated, we survived the last ice age while the Neanderthal didn't, it was because we could not only innovate, we could communicate the innovation where they couldn't. The branch of humanity that appeared, on the surface, better adapted to what was going on at the time survived. The Neanderthal did not. Sub tropical homo sapiens survived and we're now the alpha predator on this planet. Archeological evidence appears very clear on that.
We've never stopped innovating. It's gotten us to where we are today, even if it's spectacularly backfired on us at times. (Easter Island.)
On the post: Innovation, Copying And Civil Disobedience
If by inner space you mean the floor of the oceans private groups are already doing that including the fella that made Titanic and Avatar whose been fascinated with the ocean since making Titanic.
Though given what we humans have done to the surface of this planet when we've turned spots of it into tourist traps I have this feeling that we should stay out of inner space until we figure out how to clean up after ourselves.
As for the broad meaning of your post it sounds to me to be similar to what people said about the Linux when it first appeared. "There's nothing innovative about that! They're just copying!" Which ignored the itches kernel developers wanted to scratch that have resulted in evolutionary changes to the OS.
This "copy" now controls the internet, the Mars rovers, satellites, computer systems on USN and RN warships, telco switching systems and much much more. It's been adapted to all manner of situations and applications. Not bad for something that was dismissed, at first, as not innovative or as "old technology" by Windows fanboys.
When we start off with a copy we can "stand on the shoulders of giants" as Sir Issac Newton observed. Notice I said start off. From there we improve and innovate something newer and better. Innovation doesn't spring from nowhere or occur in a vacuum. Invention doesn't just happen.
Most often, it starts with a copy.
On the post: Healthcare, Journalism, And The Mad Dash For 'The Scoop'
Re:
And both got it wrong.
On the post: Healthcare, Journalism, And The Mad Dash For 'The Scoop'
Re:
The National Post is rabidly, droolingly right wing but it's exceptionally well written and actually gets its facts right. The Economist is also right wing, dedicated to caplitalism but is muted about that. Typically British that way. The Beeb tends to be leftish and also muted about it. For all that many in the USA seem to cast the NYT as leftish for those of us outside the States it's right wing and dedicated to the capitalist cause without the anger and bombast of FOX or the Tea Party.
The strange thing is that those brands are rewarded in the long term, I left out the Wall St Journal, but they don't reach a mass audience. Conflict, anger and bombast sell...even in crafts that are supposed to be above that like journalism.
The scoop has always sold. Even if, in this case, it's a manufactured scoop. The ruling was coming down, everyone knew that who was remotely interested. What was missing from the so-called process journalism was the education on just how these judical processes work. The final word on the ruling comes near the end, not at the beginning no matter how much journalists want judges to write in the same inverted pyramid that they write in.
As to results based rewards in a health care system...that does actually reduce costs and the thing that's supposed to matter the most there. Patient outcome.
In this story the patient outcome wasn't good.
On the post: Healthcare, Journalism, And The Mad Dash For 'The Scoop'
Re: Re:
So called process journalism works when it understands the process it's reporting on and understands it. Judicial rulings aren't written in an inverted pyramid style but the reporters sure reacted as if it had been. Roberts was still into his description of the problem(s) and issue(s) the Court faced before he got to the ruling which was much further in. I guess you'd call it process judiciary though the style has been around for hundreds of years so you'd think a reporter would understand that. I guess not.
Rulings start with the legal issue(s) presented, the correction(s) requested and then makes its way to the ruling. And then they go on to repeat it in depth and detail so thick you'd think you were swimming in the Alberta Tar Sands.
The other problem that the misunderstanding(s) on FOX and CNN illustrated was that the reporters inside the court waiting for the verbal ruling were, from all appearances, not reporters who covered SCOTUS much, if at all. The reports indicate that Roberts has just gotten to the problems with the commerce take on Obamacare and that's where the untrained reporters jumped rather than waiting.
Back to taking TV news seriously if you're 21, 41, 61 or 101 and take TV news seriously you're in trouble. Most particularly in specialty areas like science, constitutional law, trade issues and a fair sized raft of other things. Or to revive the so called "breaking news" concept AP is so hot on even if we got to see the bug screen full of holes in that one on the reporting of this ruling.
As you hint at. They want to hide all this behind a paywall? They actually expect to be paid for monumental screwups? (Yup)
On the post: Copyright: An Easy Excuse For Making Something Disappear
Re: Postmedia meet Streisand Effect.
I'm not even sure how much ad space The Province sells to Enbridge as a single newspaper though Postmedia would sell more space, a lot more in papers closer to home like The Edmonton Journal.
For those who don't know the Province is a tabloid style morning paper which specializes in Sports coverage and the usual blood'n'guts stories up front. The Metro Vancouver broadsheet is The Vancouver Sun which a more "serious" newspaper. Both are Postmedia products and both have had serious circulation declines in the past 20 years or so due to losing their connection with the metro area they serve.
Like a great many newspaper properties their circulation and advertising woes predate the Interwebs though they'd probably want us to think differently.
The oddest thing about this story is that editorial cartoonists are virtually untouchable in this country. Seemingly immune from our too English like libel and slander laws and other things used to control coverage. This kind of parody is something Murphy would do and I'd think Enbridge is wise enough to leave it alone. Going after a cartoonist is tantamount to instant Streisand Effect up here. Even more odd is Postmedia's and editor Wayne Moriarty's reluctance to confirm that it had to come down because of copyright.
I'm not a big Murphy fan. The Province has a far better cartoonist when it comes to public figures who need to be skewered in Bob Krieger (http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Gallery+Sports+cartoons+from+Krieger/2926089/story.html) while I find Murphy a bit childish at times.
Either way and either man, I'm going to believe Enbridge in this one. While they may have called someone in Toronto to ask what all this was about I doubt they made the advertising threat or that they issued the Canadian version of the DMCA takedown demand. They just know better.
No one seems to have expected Murphy to go public with this inside Postmedia for some strange reason. Cartoonists in Canada are a touchy bunch and guard their position as opinion leaders and opinion makers who are more trusted than their employers as well as being a vital part of the Canadian political landscape.
Postmedia meet Streisand Effect. Streisand Effect meet Postmedia. Enjoy each other's company. :-)
On the post: Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'
Re: Old news...
I doubt anything in C-11 will change out position on the 301 list as it has almost as much to do with reality as John Carter of Mars does. And it's nowhere near as bad as it could have been or many feared it would be.
Will it get us off the list? Nahhh. we have a permanent place there, I suspect. Who needs ISOHunt when there's all these bridges and highways that run across the border!
On the post: Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'
Re: Re:
The irony is that the IP extremism is costing the USA more than it's helping anything. So are the fantasies entertained around intellectual "property" such as the notion that it's a "right" and not a privilege extended to people in exchange for broadening knowledge, technology and education. What the extremists don't get is that the more extreme they become the more society at large questions extending those privileges to them and the less the society at large questions whether it is getting its end of the bargain or not. And the more society at large comes to the conclusion that it isn't.
In the meantime emerging economies such as China, Russia, Brazil and India don't worry their heads all that much about things like that. They'll take what they think they need in exactly the same way the United States did "back in the day" when it was a new country.
When the USA doesn't benefit from it's discoveries, inventions and writings as much as it ought to the skid downwards becomes faster and less controllable.
It will be a sad day when it happens. The country that housed the most true innovations of the last couple of centuries stops being the primary source and market for those innovations we will have lost something very valuable.
On the post: Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'
Re:
Keep in mind though that when we talk about Real Estate we're talking what's called Real property. Not just that but my and your rights are firmly established from more than a thousand years of jurisprudence.
Let's move on to copyright and patent law. Neither were ever intended to establish the rights holder with the same rights that a holder of real property has. In the case of the first copyright act (1709) the major trigger wasn't the alleged "rights" of creators but to prevent publishers from bankrupting themselves by rushing the same titles and authors to market at the same time in order to get the best sales on what were hoped would be best sellers.
All either concepts do is confer a monopoly on copying something, one in text form, the other in terms of physical inventions until they fell into the public domain. And it was a much shorter trip to the public domain then than now in recognition of that privilege and lawmakers who recognized that the less time something was held in a monopoly the better. Neither were ever intended to confer anything near the rights held by owners of real tangible property.
Now. as for the United States wanting to declare my country a security risk if we don't follow every jot, comma, semicolon and period of how people like you in the States interpret copyright, in particular, and patent law fill your boots. We're always high on that fiction called the 301 list.
After that you may want to talk to American and Canadian troops who, for years, served cheek by jowl in Afghanistan about just how much of a risk we are. Then you might want to kill off NORAD and NATO.
All in defense of the fantasy called intellectual "property" "rights". Not that creators and inventors shouldn't be rewarded, they should be. But there is a difference between real tangible property and what's covered by copyright and patent law.
Equating your rights where real tangible property is concerned with what's covered by copyright and patents is a false dichotomy. And a logical fallacy.
Which pretty much covers the duties defined for the "co-coordinator for cyber issues".
You can feel what you want and post what you want but your comparison is still a fallacy and no amount of stamping your feet is going to change that.
On the post: Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued
Re: Hypocrisy!
What Mike is pointing out is the cost of compliance with this ruling and, often, the near impossibility of it as the site owner could very well land in a copyright infringement lawsuit should they provide closed captioning in many cases should the rights owner not have provided it to the site.
This is a case of dueling precedence where copyright may overrule the need for sites to provide closed captioning. I may not have said that well but one requirement may smack up against the brick walls of another one.
This sort of thing gets nothing done for the deaf or for site owners.
As for blind people there are long standing ways built into HTML, PHP and so on that take care of telling the blind person what's on the screen and, in many cases, reading it to them.
On the post: Free Culture Is The Response To The Ethical Failings Of The Old Entertainment Industry
Re:
The chances of attaining that lifestyle with the labels in charge was about the same as it is now, perhaps less. They still have to work at it whether it's Free Culture in charge or the labels.
On the post: Free Culture Is The Response To The Ethical Failings Of The Old Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Free Culture Is The Response To The Ethical Failings Of The Old Entertainment Industry
Re: Re:
So you're an "artists", eh? Evidently you don't write prose as your spelling and grammar are atrocious so that can't be it. And in total here you have the voice of two artists in particular that Mike has written about taking diametrically opposed positions on this. So much for unanimity right off the top.
As for the mainstream media, they jumped on in, commented on it -- a great deal of the commentary negative and critical of Lowery's position -- and have jumped off it again. Today, for example the fate of Obamacare has kinda taken over but you seem sure that the mainstream will pick it up again. Oh, and take Lowery's position.
As for Lowery being the voice of all artists rights, it does seem, since he posted his opinion that there are artists who have the nerve to disagree with him and you.
I will point out one thing. David Lowery wrote under his own name. I don't post as an Anonymous Coward but using a nick that a fair number of people know and can connect directly to my real name -- John Wilson, if you're interested -- while you hide behind Anonymity and make claims like being an "artists" that aren't the slightest bit verifiable.
This time around I'd prefer you were left unreported so that we can remember that you don't make any sense. Even when posting an Ad Hom.
And rather than answer Zac Shaw's points you ignore them. Perhaps it's because you can't.
Have fun keeping count. And do enlighten us as to what kind of "artists" you are, if you'd be so kind.
On the post: Research Shows: You Don't Need Patents To Disclose Information
Re: Re: Re:
And yes, the middleman in the recording industry, as distinct from the broader music business, isn't always found at parties sniffing lines with hundred dollar bills and famously asking "by the way which one's Pink?".
Nor are they, as far too often portrayed here by folks like you, guardians of the culture, keeping out the riff-raff and LOLcats. If a label can make a bundle off of singing LOLCats they'll sign and market them in a flash. After all, that's what A&R guys do. Labels aren't concerned about releasing ART they are a money making businesses that are concerned with making money. If art comes from that so much the better.
The AC you're responding to may know diddly squat about the recording industry but from your response you know about as much as s/he does, perhaps less.
Nor do you respond to his accurate point that most musicians and acts are the ones drawing the short end of the stick when it comes to collecting the cash at the end of the day. Or the simple fact that as the recording industry consolidated from the 1970s to now and the number of so-called majors fell to single digit numbers while regional labels almost disappeared as well the majors did what companies that face limited or no (real) competition do they loaded up with middle management (aka middlemen) whose major task has been shuffling paper.
Face it, the majors are now owned by companies that aren't even distantly related to the arts much less recording in general and music in particular. The rich recording and musical environment of the 1950s to 1970s is long gone where the people in it were not only trying to make money but knew music, knew recording, knew how to do it and how to promote it. Not spreadsheet jockies insisting that the studio make a profit each and every week.
As for whose parents did a better job raising their children I'd have to guess yours didn't manage to teach you any manners or even the fine art of persuasion. I'm sure they did their best so I'm not going to judge them on a single rude and ignorant post by their son. You, however I will judge.
You're a rude, ignorant twerp.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Re:
It seems to bother Madam Justice Helen Winkelmann a whole lot. And I suspect her opinion and knowledge of the relevant law in New Zealand is a whole lot better than yours or mine.
Given the US DoJ's actions here I suspect they may try to appeal on your grounds. Given her status as Chief Justice of New Zealand's High Court I suspect that her ruling will be hard to poke holes into which is the only grounds for appeal in this kind of ruling. She's been around a bit and she definitely knows her law. Good luck to 'em. They're probably going to need it.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Re: Re:
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Chambers as that's going on!
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Huh?
Next >>